15 replies to this topic

[Genesis Veracity]

Is anyone aware of any recent dives just west of Gibralter for more pictures of the submerged megaliths there?

And I am wondering if there have been any dives off southern England and Ireland, for Lyonesse and Hy-Brasil (which means Forest of King Sil).

[Robert Henvell]

Missed the article on submerged megaliths west of Gibralter.Could you please provide more details??
Bob

[Genesis Veracity]

See http://usuarios.lyco...f_Gibraltar.pdf

And the now submerged Spartel Island, at the base of the Rock of Gibraltar, should be investigated for megaliths.  That whole now subsea realm at the southern tip of Spain was ancient Tartessos.

[BuckyE]

Interesting, but hard to see how this would be "revolutionary." There have to be a jillion undiscovered archaeological sites all over the world, some on land and some covered by the rising Holocene oceans. Look at the sites around the Gulf of Morbihan. "Seahenge" was UNcovered by natural beach erosion twenty years ago.
Without some dating that makes the alleged Spanish sites much more ancient than any others, it's nice to know about, but I don't get the buzz.

[Genesis Veracity]

And when do you think sea level rose to submerge those megaliths?

[Robert Henvell]

Thank you for the PDF.
Bob

[Genesis Veracity]

To BuckyE,

You seem to say that the megaliths were submerged supposedly at around 7000 B.C. ("Holocene") when sea level rose a few hundred feet.

But the problem you have is that such megalithic building did not begin until around 3000 B.C., according to conventional archaeologists, so there is a gap of 4,000 years to rationalize with your scheme.

[Genesis Veracity]

After googling a bit, I see that most conventional scientists think that the "Holocene" began at around 10000 B.C., so you actually have about 7,000 years to rationalize.

[BuckyE]

If I "seemed" to say anything of the kind you attribute to me, I apologise. Of course I did not, as every schoolchild knows the Holocene oceans have been rising steadily for the 10K or so years you cite, albeit at a slower rate than the rise during the very late Pliestocene.

Gosh, Gen, they've got all the data on AVERAGE sea level rise in the PDF you linked to. You didn't need to do any Googling. However, to begin with, an introductory quote from www.gcrio.org/geo/sea.html :
"The position and height of sea relative to the land (relative sea level - RSL) determines the location of the shoreline... Though global fluctuations in sea level may result from the growth and melting of continental glaciers, and large-scale changes in the configuration of continental margins and ocean floors, there are many regional processes that result in rise or fall of RSL that affect one coastline and not another. These include: thermal expansion of ocean waters, changes in meltwater load, crustal rebound from glaciation, uplift or subsidence in coastal areas related to various tectonic processes (e.g. seismic disturbance and volcanic action), fluid withdrawal, and sediment deposition and compaction. RSL variations may also result from geodetic changes such as fluctuations in the angular velocity of the Earth or polar drift."

I can see that Dr. Díaz-Montexano is claiming ages of 5 and 9K BCE for these sites, based on "several updated bathymetric and paleoceanographic studies." But a few points. What are these studies? Do they take into account the possibility that local subsidence may have occurred? One hopes so. Next, are they in situ, or have the stones been tumbled deeper by wave or tide action? Is it possible the stones were moved oceanwards by floods, landslides or earthquakes before they were submerged? I have no idea, but those are the kinds of things you need to know before you can posit anything like an age for them based on depth of alleged submergence.

Next, we know from dating at Gobekli Tepe in Turkey and similar sites that megalithic building began about 9K BCE--in Turkey, at any rate--much earlier than the 3K BCE you cite. So why not in Spain, too?

I do know that ever since I was a nipper long ago, the ages for "first" everything have been pushed back and back. It won't surprise me a bit to see these or some other stones establish new benchmarks for antiquity. That goes on all the time, and is just a function of finding more obscure sites. It's one of the neat things archaeologists do. Get to be my age and it doesn't seem revolutionary at all. Interesting sure, but all of a piece with everything I've read for forty years: we don't know beans. Thanks for the headsup on coastal Spain. Keep the news coming!

[Genesis Veracity]

The concensus of conventional geologists is that the Ice Age ended rapidly (consider the flooded-out, then frozen, remains of animals and plants in the end of the Ice Age flood debris now in the permafrost of the Arctic) at around 10000 B.C.

Conventionals (like yourself) are "ignorant" of the submerged megaliths in various parts of the world (such as off Spain, Malta, Lebanon, Egypt, India, Malaysia, and Japan) because they don't want to deal with the implication that megalithic building began before 10000 B.C., according to the conventional timeline, so the conventionals must explain why they were off by 7,000 years in pinpointing the time for the beginning of megalithic building.

[Nigel]

Genesis Veracity, on 12 September 2005, 12:48, said:

Hy-Brasil (which means Forest of King Sil).

Does it?!
I had no idea. What's the etymology? And what significance should be attached to it?

[Jimit]

Try this entry from Wikipedia...  http://www.answers.c...y-brasil?gwp=11   It seems to be a mythical island with as many locations as Atlantis.

Jim.

[Diego]

Genesis Veracity, on 26 September 2005, 13:04, said:

the conventionals must explain why they were off by 7,000 years in pinpointing the time for the beginning of megalithic building.

I can understand your enthusiasm - archaeology is a fascinating field, and the beginning of megalithic building is definitely a "moving target". However, I'm always trying to base my opinion on facts. And if an explanation is needed, I believe it shouldn't come from "conventionals", but from serious and in-depth studies instead.

The article you mentioned is really interesting - thanks for posting the link! - but even its author isn't sure of the real meaning of his finds. He is straight and honest saying that "[we] need to verify the authenticity of the artifacts we have located. Should they prove to be true archaeological remains..." That means that we should be cautious with timelines - and I believe we need much more underwater excavations and furthers studies before saying that "megalithic building began before 10000 B.C."

Of course, that doesn't mean that I won't accept this theory - it's just a matter of time if (or when) we will find real evidence of megalith builders in such ancient times.

Diego

[Genesis Veracity]

Of course, I am not saying that megalithic building began before 10000 B.C., I am saying that it began around 2500 B.C., like the conventionals on this aspect, but so, the Ice Age ended after 2500 B.C., to submerge the megaliths which were built around that date.

[Nigel]

Genesis Veracity, on 28 September 2005, 15:51, said:

Of course, I am not saying that megalithic building began before 10000 B.C., I am saying that it began around 2500 B.C., like the conventionals on this aspect

I don't think they do.

Incidentally, isn't "conventionalist" a term better applied to those who have a belief in the validity of Genesis? Darwin, after all, was a revolutionary who went against conventional thinking wasn't he?

I live only a few miles from where he was born. There haven't been any conventionalists round here for 150 years...